[Xewksghy]

dear friends,

part i
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmazp...e=channel_page

part ii
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkhjloe2nsq

be well, be love.

david

please just watch and feel it.

"if the world came into being through an act of a transcendent creator, the stuff of which the world was built and its functioning are both the product of an all-pervading consciousness, and it was this created out of consciousness.

science is asking, "where and when did life enter into the scheme of things?"

the answer lies in the proper understanding of life and what life actually signifies.

let us therefore have done with this philosophical speculation and examine the facts before us, basically.

if something has been created, and we know definitely that it has, then no "thing" could have created it - dead matter cannot create anything. not even an entity nor a spiritual entity can create. because an entity must itself be created - it is itself a creation.

the creator cannot therefore be an entity or a spirit, but must be an all-pervading consciousness which saturates the ether and space or extent in its infinite totality, of which our universe or cosmos is a particle.

thus there could not be more than one creator because a creator would then be partial and not total nor all-pervading. if there were more than one, then each one would be an entity, and as entities they could rule, but not create.

nothing, therefore, can create but a creator, and nothing can create a creator. because whatever created a creator is the creator, and if there is more than one, they must have been created. so the all-pervading consciousness is the creator - and there is only one.

this branch of physical physics is not concerned with the spiritual laws or moral issues.

the important points derived from this are, that the cosmos or universe is saturated with this consciousness and functions on the creator's plan, which we term "the laws of nature." a physics which does not understand and ignores consciousness is itself fundamentally sterile, and can only be used as a guide to the techniques.

life did not enter into the scheme of things. organic life is created out of entities, and entities are products of consciousness, conscious-energy and life-force or bio-magnetism, and the life-force is derived from the all-pervading consciousness or the creator. in other words, the definition of fundamental or "origin-consciousness" is the creator. there is no such thing as "original consciousness" - because this would imply that the creator had been created, whereas he must always have been and always be for he is the origin of all consciousness or origin-consciousness."

"the physics of the primary state of matter," chapter 3, by cyril w. davson based on the work of karl schappeller.

[Qeiafib]

if something has been created, and we know definitely that it has, then no "thing" could have created it - dead matter cannot create anything. not even an entity nor a spiritual entity can create. because an entity must itself be created - it is itself a creation. is there such thing as dead matter? if the cosmos in it's entirety is alive...

there is consciousness in everything. imo.

an entity.

here, a concept of the entity (conscious being) being the created, as differentiated from the creator.

if there's only one consciousness, differentiation seems an issue, as to that created, and the creator.

perhaps (just throwing this out there...) there is only the creator; and factoring in the holographic nature of reality, cannot we hypothesize that every conceivable manifest subdivision of the creator is the creator, creating change and experience as it goes? creating as to it's under the belt and gained level of experiencing - having separated into infinite new and un-experienced fragments, re-learning and re-experiencing anew the totality of all possible experiencing?

if there is a you, you have the uncompromized potential... no, reality... of being the creator, yourself. in fact, it is you who has the dubious distinction of having created all which is... maybe?

i personally believe that every entity and seeming miniscule fragment of 'creation' carries responsibility for the whole enchilada. gradually, as we evolve and come to find all within, we come to know that our own individual selves contain everyone, and everything.

you are but one individual among many. you have a seeming limited vocabulary of creativeness. yet your level of responsibility is commensurate with your level of attaining realization of your infinite creatorship.

as we grow, and learn to accept responsibility for all the trips of our race, we do come eventually to accept greater responsibility for the fact that there is only one creator, and that creator is us, personally. i don't believe that any individual, be they a fly or a germ, is any less responsible for all of creation, as they move forward.

for now, we have the wonder of finding ourselves as being seeming parts, and our responsibility for now is our own sphere of being. our level of responsibility is always commensurate with our own level of being, and this is good.

yet each's experience is moving and growing, so no one's going to chastise you, from a soul growth aspect, as to your level of growth. we're all very much at the same level, us people. no one is saying that you have to grow faster than your own chosen rate. it's all good, and everyone will eventually grow into more and more of what they are, and thoughts of losing your self to the greater panoply of the creator are misgiven. i think that the more you grow, the more 'you' you become, notwithstanding the fact that you are finding more and more of others within yourself.

if there's only one of us here, the expected outcome is that we are all fated to find our way to a greater and greater experiencing of being the creator - and if we are patient, each will come through our trials and find that 'i am'. mark